The first one isn't about race, but about the general treatment we often show each other. For the record, my experience didn't mirror elf3's, and I was a bit saddened when reading it. When I ventured out it was a chilly, drizzly day, but everyone was polite and in a good mood. My voting experience was pleasant. The second one really prompted me, since a couple of the comments mirrored my sentiments so closely. But also prompted, admittedly, by being accused of being a "racist piece of shit" by the forum mascot for having the audacity to point out that black Americans don't have exclusive claims to racism, oppression and violence.

Race relations is a big, complicated issue. No pun intended, but it's not simply black and white, and I don't profess to have any answers. My world-view, like yours, is filtered by my unique history, upbringing, and experiences. My biases, DNA, and skin tone. What follows is just one white boy's perspective, a few observations, a miniscule piece of our collective 7 billion piece jigsaw puzzle. It started out as a rambling tome covering everything from the origins of the N. American slave trade in 1507 Spain, and how it's 'Hispanic' origins are curiously absent from the dialog, all the way to Bischoff the butcher's grandson being assaulted for being 'white,' although his 100% German family never even got here until 1890, but I felt it better to distill it a bit. Trim a bunch of fat. And try not to be divisive.

A couple weeks ago I posted a comment about Irish immigrants coming here to escape the "Great Hunger" (those who could afford it) and how they were often treated when they arrived and I was attacked by a couple forum members whose entire understanding of Irish history has apparently been derived from watching "The Gangs of New York" a couple times. A good movie, but not a good history lesson. So, I would suggest trying starvation as a lifestyle to give a better perspective on a plight still being experienced by millions of people planet-wide. Try it for a month and get back to me. Nothing but moldy bread and brackish stream water allowed. In fact, until you've had to make the gut-wrenching decision to watch one of your children literally starve to death so your other two children might live, I suggest STFU, because you have no idea of what true oppression is. And, since it is true that it's flat out impossible, visually, to tell the difference between me and Randy the Redneck, still proudly flying his rebel flag, apparently, since I also share a skin tone with Randy, I'm supposed to share in this "collective white guilt." Guilt by proxy. Fuck that, the entire concept is ludicrous. My anecdote was dismissed with the question, "Yeah, but how have the Irish treated the blacks since then?" An equally valid question is, "How have the blacks treated the Irish?" Like Irish immigrants? Or like "white folk?" But, wait, I said I wasn't going to be divisive. Apologies. Back on point:

A decade or so ago when I worked as a delivery driver, I was hired to train new drivers (note to the ex-wife: Yes, there is more to the delivery business than just "driving around in circles all day." lol). One of my more memorable days was training a South Korean guy, and besides giving me an interesting perspective on the average S. Koreans' opinion about our military presence, he had an opinion on this subject as well. Like many Koreans, his family came to this country for the same old reason: to save some money and eventually open a small business to experience the "Dream." Being business-minded, they'll usually locate in poorer neighborhoods, not because of ethnics, but simple economics. It's cheaper to live and operate a business there and their types of businesses thrive on walk-in's. But what infuriated him the most was his people constantly being referred to as "gooks." Constantly. For those that don't know, "gook" is a derogatory term for the Chinese. Also for those of you that don't know, the Chinese have coveted that little peninsula for a very long time, and as my "trainee du jour" was quick to point out, by and large, the South Koreans hate the Chinese. He was far more bothered by being mistaken for his mortal enemy than the fact that "gook" is a racial slur. I'd be hard-pressed to find a better example here in the US of such blind indifference to someone's history or culture but I imagine it would be akin to me constantly referring to the black guy across the street as a "honky slave-master," I don't know.

One more point about the delivery business, and a must-know for new trainees. A number of my ex-employer's clients, some are household names, had a hard and fast rule against any deliveries coming in the front door, regardless of how important the package may be. They would cease all business with my ex-employer (and the driver would be fired) if this rule was ever broken. Now, I can understand the inconvenience it might cause hauling fifty boxes of letterhead thru the marble-encrusted lobby, but a single envelope addressed to the company CEO stamped 'Urgent?' WTF? Having just as much pride and self-respect as just about everyone else on the block, I resented the hell out of this. Sometimes I bristled, but never let it show. Drive around back. Look for the door marked specifically for "you guys." "Shades of Sammy Davis," if you catch my drift. Classism, just like racism, is stigmatizing.

Now, about those 'Hispanics.' The term Hispanic isn't a slur, of course, it's merely a catch-all phrase for a diverse group of people. I don't think any of us are naive enough to believe that an Iberian multimillionaire sipping cocktails in his Ibiza villa and a member of the Awa tribe gathering fruit in what's left of the Brazilian rain forests have anything close to a shared heritage, and this is why many Portuguese, Cubans, Bolivians, etc. resent the term 'Hispanic.' It reflects a lack of knowledge, indeed respect, for an individual's culture or history. Like the term "gook," derogatory or not, such words and phrases reflect a general ignorance, and often indifference, of our unique individualities (and one reason I'm against the concept of a homogeneous population. Not to preserve my "white skin," but because the end result would be, well, . . . boring).

Is racism a big problem and should it be addressed? Absolutely. But it's multifaceted, and very few of us are totally immune, or totally guiltless. Like many of our problems, the solution often begins at home. But it also helps immensely to have a clear picture of it all. And equally as important, know where the problems really lie. Know thine enemy. Is the problem really some inner-city white guy whose distant ancestor owned three slaves (according to a 1775 Last Will and Testament) but whose later descendants died in the Civil War fighting for the North? Is it the immigrants, who are here to "steal all our jobs," or just because they're different? Is it OWS, who some apparently think loses all legitimacy if it doesn't make race it's front and center issue? Or is it the government, who are gleefully aware that racism was tailor-made for a "divide and conquer" strategy (and are milking it for all it's worth) and are absolutely mortified at the concept of a unified and angry population? It's my personal belief that anyone who hates, or even judges, simply on the basis of skin tone is playing by their rules, regardless of how justified you've been made to feel. If you truly are a racist, go for it. Go ahead and feel it. Just don't show it. When you show it, or act on it, you're playing their game. You're being played.

You see, except for that check-box on a job application or government form, or for scientific classification perhaps, there's no such thing as "Hispanic," really. Or "Asian." Or "black" or "white" for that matter. They're labels. Words that mean far, far less than what we've been trained to believe they mean. They're "red-state" "blue-state." Divide and conquer.

And one more thing: If ,by some miracle, racism would magically vanish from this planet overnight . . . the delivery man will still have to use the back door.

194 Comments

There is only one race, the human race. The differences are somatic only, ie. skin color. Slavery has existed for millennia throughout the world barely escaping any civilization. What happened in the United States is that the slaves were from Africa, and hence, of a different skin color from the majority of Europeans that had settled in America in colonial times. So when emancipated, no matter how free they technically were, it was clear who had been a slave or who had been descended from slaves. We also never compensated the slaves when emancipated. They were freed without the 40 acres and a mule that they were minimally promised. Reconstruction was a major failure. It takes generations to overcome the kind of poverty they were released into. As a nation we haven't even begun to deal with this issue.

It also takes many generations to embed poverty and most americans are blind to these 'original sins'. Growing up with the casual racism of the segregation era made me realise that black people were used to remind and frighten americans into thinking 'there, but for the grace of god go I' and it is still the case now. Class solidarity is perhaps the main solution for us. Thank you for your very important comment.

The massive majority of us are 'working class'. That's how all society pyramids are. Class conciousness has been seen as something bad in our country because then we are more easily divided and ruled! The standard economic models are BS and some sort of of democratic, socio-capitalism is what is most effective and needed. I always read your comments here and salute you. Please would you read this - http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-do-not-believe-you-can-build-a-movement-on-a-lie/#comment-874847 & Never Give Up! GO OCCUPY!

Good comment, bw, as usual. I imagine we fought that war without any clue as to how to handle the end result. I'm pretty sure the complexity of the issue was unanticipated. "The law of unforeseen consequences." I wonder what the situation would be nowadays had the American slaves been white. One thing's for sure. TPTB couldn't use skin color as a weapon, at least not to the extent they do now. What, therefore, would be their weapon of choice I wonder?

I honestly think had the slaves had the same skin color, had they come from Europe, for instance, as the indentured servants did, they would have assimilated much easier. This would have made the generational problems of overcoming poverty much easier and we wouldn't have the problems we have today. So, in the end, skin color matters (whether it should or shouldn't) and we need to face that. But, thank god they came from Africa because they enrich our society in so many ways. I cannot imagine an America without African Americans and I, personally, find African American history the most interesting aspect of American history.

Yeah, had they come from Europe, assimilation would have been a non-issue. Which is one reason it's so perplexing that simply because of skin tone, it's been a completely different issue. I personally believe that racism has its roots, if not in our DNA, definitely ingrained from the time we were far more primitive than we now are. It was a survival mechanism, distrust of anything different. We're basically just animals after all. It's just an opinion, though.

No, you are exactly right, I think. The "other" is something that has always been feared and degraded. Nationalism creates the "other," the feeling that "my" group is better or superior to "your" group. So, Europeans always saw the world in a Eurocentric way, that they are superior and deemed anyone who didn't look or dress like them as savages and not fully human. This occurred from the earliest encounters including Columbus' times and only continued, especially as the triangular trade got into full swing. It was a justification for slavery and for killing off the Native Americans. So, freeing the slaves, who were different by skin color, and not giving them the right to vote and compensation for their work was a complete and total failure, one that we live with today.

Good point about Eurocentrism, and entirely true. You still see it today. I have to laugh when I watch a program on history and they'll say something like, "The Romans ruled most of the ancient world." Oh, really? You mean, "except 90% of Asia, both Americas and most of Africa? Except Australia and the islands of the Pacific?" History has indeed been skewed, or at least our knowledge of it.

And as far as it being ingrained for a very long time, I think that's one reason it's so hard to eliminate.

Millions of the slaves were white; transported in chains, in tighter quarters, and sold on the block alongside Africans. Does that answer your "I wonder what"? Their slavery, which typically resulted in death, because they were people of lesser value has never rated so much as a historical mention.

I am definitely talking about the Untied States and also the Islands. The indentured slave which history has recorded as "servant" was never freed; it merely fell out of favor. And I will say this one more time, briefly: they were sold into indenture by slave traders, transported in chains, in tighter quarters than those of the African, and were sold on the blocks alongside the African. Their contracts were often purchased and then resold at a profit; all of the restrictions that were applied to the African slave, were applied to the indentured white slave. And since these people were worth far less than the African, very few of them survived; many, in fact, begged for execution rather than be transported to a certain miserable death. The beauty of the contract system, was that the courts generally sided with owners and the contracts were, repeatedly, indefinitely, extended for even minor transgressions. It was abject slavery. But in creating an American history, an American identity, historians have neglected certain less appealing elements; does that surprise you? Truthfully, there are a lot of misconceptions.

I empty libraries; as I read I scour bibliographies for the next book of interest; I hit the Net in search of books, although I'm somewhat more discerning on articles; I do JSTORS, Google Scholar, and I like college dissertations. I like primary source documents - wills, deeds, town and court records... I seek out the greats and I build on that. I also watch documentaries and gather as much as I can from living history because I think there is tremendous value to be gained in the personal opinions of those who actually lived through an era.

My history is not the same as yours, or anybody else's, because I follow my interests rather than a prescribed curriculum. In my opinion, I could easily devote fifty years to history and still never read but a fraction of what is available or even explore all that I wish to explore.

Lately, I've been very curious about primary source documents on the other side of the pond. Because I know there is a certain American history that is available there, much of which has not been published.

I realize my interest in history is probably one of the sicker aspects of my personality. But... books are still being published so I guess I'm not entirely alone.

Yes. I have estimated that for every question I sought to initially resolve another hundred were generated; and at this point those questions have run into the tens of thousands. I have always had an interest in all things "old." I just find a lot of it fascinating. And I have huge curiosities. So... whatever.

No... what I support is a more accurate vision of our past - there is so much that is overlooked - and "chief among these" is the fact that there was but one distinction of any relevance in colonial America and that is this: one was either free or one was un-free. And it had nothing at all to do with color.

Traditionally, the feeling has always been that it was morally acceptable to enslave either, a, as a victim of war, b, due to an in ability or refusal to meet debt obligation, or c, if life difficulties caused one to volunteer for that indenture.

Although it is possible to purchase, it is impossible to actually "own" any other living creature. But in any case, slavery is contractual.

Yes. Any American with High debt is sort of being owned by an Entity that is smarter than him. Just looked up Privateer, Pirate, Slavery, debt Bondage. Many, many slaves in our history. And Wikipedia said the first many to institute slavery of Africans in America was a black man. Europe had millions of slaves. Brazil had more African slaves than America I guess.

Brazil was their only truly profitable corporate effort but the Africans that were enslaved there were of this same machine that supplied them to North America. There are two slight variations of African slavery; in the one instance the master provides all care but reaps all profit; in the other the slave is permitted to retain some of the profit of his or her labor but he must provide entirely for himself.

The wage slavery of today that manufacturing and industrialization created is of the second instance; slavery, like freedom, is but a matter of degree.

No, it doesn't. If you're suggesting the situation would be identical nowadays because some of the slaves were white, I'd have to disagree. If the majority of the slaves back then were white, I'd guess we wouldn't be such a racially-divided country. It's just a guess, of course. And are you saying the white slaves were often considered of lesser value than the blacks? That's sure to get a couple forum members panties in a bunch. How dare you (just kidding).

No, I am not suggesting they were often considered of lesser value - they were ALWAYS considered of lesser value. Because the price on their heads was but a fraction of the African investment.

Concepts of race, are as people suggest - they were contrived to a purpose. But this does not occur until somewhat later.

African slavery quadrupled from the period of about 1820 on due to the invention of the cotton gin which made cotton far more profitable. But I would also imagine that this rapid expansion of acreage also placed increased pressure on the overseer.

The problem that the English had with enslaving their own people is that they were highly susceptible to yellow fever and malaria; they died by the tens of thousands. And these were corporate ventures of the Crown, human beings were merely a tool of profit.

What I am trying to say, is that although African slavery eventually takes on this much larger dimension, especially in the South, it wasn't just the African that the European oppressed - they truly were equal opportunity slavers.

There are other elements of slavery, too, that go beyond this vision of of a mere plantation slavery.

Economics. England had huge populations of poor that they had to rid themselves of; these hovels of the poor invited crime, pestilence, and disease, not to mention increased social pressure. And they were very easy to acquire - they were dragged before the courts on invented crimes and sentenced to servitude, and they were actively hunted by gangs, on and on. Selling the poor was a thriving business.

We people of the British Isles really were a brutal and primitive people; tribal war which sacrificed many lesser lives was the natural state of affairs for at least a thousand years.

As late as 1799, books were being written in England, by elitists, to debate the benefits of marriage amongst the poor. Because the poor didn't ceremonially marry in England; there was no public declaration, it was a verbal agreement, unrecorded, without witness, and too often women were before the courts to say their husband had deserted them without support, and males, of course, would simply deny. But even with all the debate, the books written, no effort was made to ensure the poor married.

As late as the 1820s, the British employed four year old boys in London to physically descend chimneys as sweeps. And quite often, they got stuck in these chimneys. Standard accepted practice was to light a fire beneath them and literally melt them out. And then the chimney sweep would simply acquire another little boy. These are true stories. They give you some idea of just how brutal people really were.

Because believe it or not an African slave was a relatively expensive investment, and as I believe I mentioned earlier, that price almost quadrupled after importation was outlawed in 1807. We're talking - literally - a black market here. The white indentured slave sold for a fraction of that price; they were either worked to death or beat to death and then replaced.

Brutal indeed. I have to admit, the chimney-sweep story kind of sent a chill down my spine. I have a vivid imagination can can easily picture the scenario. I believe a lot of people have a hard time accepting that most people throughout history had no real 'value' to speak of (especially after reading a couple responses on this thread). That they were considered 'things,' commodities, disposable. We've come a long way in the past few centuries. Unfortunately, we're still a bit brutal.

I think that many of us had grown to generally prosperous for their tastes. And I've actually been concerned about this for some time; there has been a general prosperity in terms of nice homes, new cars, cheap products, that did not exist thirty years ago. Today many people of average means live in homes twice the size of those that in former times would have been inhabited by a doctor; my fear has been that they would try to take us down a notch. And I still believe they will attempt this because our obstinance stands in the way of their agenda.

They're definitely taking us down a notch. Or two. Not trying. Actually doing. Here's my 'in a nutshell' take on what's been going on, although admittedly, I haven't paid attention for a long time. They're eliminating the middle class, which historically has had a modicum of wealth and influence, which leaves the rich and the 'service industries.' In other words, the 'help.' You have a bottomless piggy bank (the Fed) and wealth created out of thin air (much of Wall Street). No middle class means no one to upset the apple cart. The poor provide a limitless pool of 'hired help;' the grass cutters, beemer-washers, and food delivery drones. From an elitist standpoint, it sounds like paradise. The problem is, such a view is wildly simplistic, and unsustainable. They also incorrectly believed the gravy train would never end. Or that we would eventually get wise to it. I suspect they may be in for a rude awakening.

Yea. I agree with all of that wholeheartedly. And my concern isn't really for myself - I have never really thought of myself as needing anything from this world - my concern is for the upcoming generations. No child should be born into this world a slave to the coming next generation of wealthy elitists; the question for me is where my people will escape to in the future. Because, very obviously, we are not winning this one.

I stand almost corrected, although the fifth example on that page does say 'Asians.' My story is entirely true, by the way, taken straight from that S.Korean's mouth, so apparently they believe it refers to the Chinese. Thanks for the link. Having not googled "gook" before posting, I assumed it meant the Chinese exclusively.

Lots to think about in this very good and moving piece. Fantastic last line because 'class' is the real issue and the truth that basically we are all 'working class' but divided and conquered by illusions of being something else. Thank you for this post.

Thank you. Class is indeed one of the real issues. I used to have this conversation with many of my black trainees, about how class division is being masqueraded as race division. Some were smart enough to know this already and were quite receptive. Others not so much, they pretty much wanted me out of their car. But it's a fact. If TPTB can keep us distracted by skin color, we'll keep fighting amongst ourselves. Once we realize it's more about wealth disparity, we start fighting them. That's why they'll fight tooth-and-nail to keep the race issue on the front burner. It's one of their most effective weapons against us.

Further to your comment, please read this - http://occupywallst.org/forum/i-do-not-believe-you-can-build-a-movement-on-a-lie/#comment-874847. I have read this very interesting thread and have edited 'brilliant' in my previous comment to 'very good' btw because it was warranted. Some of my paternal ancestors were wealthy slave owners and like it or not, I have accrued benefits from that. The opposite of 'benefit' is the inheritance of the descendants of slaves today. It is NOT a level playing field - like it or not! Class Consciousness is a big part of the solutions of the situation that Buttercup wonderfully describes in her comment and we here are all trying to work towards a more beautiful world, right? Please read the link.

Thank you for changing your comment. 'Brilliant' was definitely too strong a word. It needed one major edit, but I was distracted at the time and not fully focused. I don't like editing a post after posting it, especially if part of it is going to be removed because to anyone reading the thread afterwards some of the comments won't make sense.

Yes, I read 'Buttercup's' comment on that thread. (S)he is spot-on. And working towards a more beautiful world is indeed our purpose.

Just read your link. It's great that Amy Goodman mentioned OWS' 'Rolling Jubilee.' That's the kind of press we need. I just wish I had more disposable cash to start donating to some of these great causes. Trying to do what I can, though, in other ways.

The Rolling Jubilee is getting world wide attention now. Max Keiser enthusiastically applauded the Rolling Jubilee on his Saturday show as well, which, as you know is played on RTnews to a very large audience.

Max definitely kicks ass. I don't get the chance to check him out near as much as I should.

Hey, I checked out your new site before shutting down last night. Only checked out a bit, so we'll talk more after I give it good look. I skimmed that long list of women on that one link and all I can say is WTF!! Are TTRT ("those that run things") really this, . . . this . . . . hell I can't even think of the proper word. Decadent is far too kind. Some surprising names on that list, some not surprising at all (I've long wondered why Jon Voigt doesn't get along with his daughter, whom I absolutely can't stand. Angelina, I mean. Jon's an excellent actor). And, of course, we have the expected representatives from 'that' family. They need to go. Every effin' one of them.

Yeah, that whole website I sent you is wild. I don't know if it makes much sense to you if you don't have some background information. I don't know how far down the rabbit hole you are, but I have some info you might want to take a look at that helps make more sense out of it. But its brutal. I can send it to you via PM. Its too much a departure for the main forum. Let me know. In the meantime...keep the balance. Things have gotten pretty serious out there.

This is my first post on racism, prompted as I stated in the OP (you may want to read it again, you think?) by the half-dozen or so posts that have already been posted over the last couple weeks. You're priceless, V. You really are.

If I were to call, LeoYo for example, or Gates, a "clueless idiot," that would be an 'insult.' Calling you one is an 'observation.'

Seems like that 1% versus the 99% thing is another divide and conquer tactic. As in us "poor 99%" need to rise up against them "rich 1%", yada yada, and so on. I'm sure this stuff has all of the 1% rich shaking; good and evil. Lets think about it. I'm certain there are plenty, probably a majority, of those 1% rich who are most benevolent and community minded. With all the rhetoric, I bet they are scared too. Is it possible this 1% versus 99% thing is a tactic by some evil oligarchy to separate us poor 99% from that benevolent 1% who may support and fund our movement?

There are suspicions that OWS may have a hidden agenda, especially with the Soros connection. I'd like to think not, but sometimes I have my suspicions. Also, I agree there are many in the 1% who are good people. No doubt about it, and many are probably very nervous right now.

Nonsense. The idea that more empathy will offset wealthy arrogance and the balance of power that now favors wealth over productivity is absurd. You have a group of people who have knowingly and willfully exploited and suppressed the economy below them. No, no sympathy for the devil. At least not as far as I'm concerned.

That wasn't really my point. OWS may have a hidden agenda, but I didn't mean to imply it was to separate the poor 99% from the 'benevolent' 1%. If OWS has a hidden agenda, that certainly isn't it. I would have to agree, though, that there are probably some very good people in the 1%, but nowhere near a majority. I also believe some of them are probably a bit nervous right now.

Amazing, but not surprising. We've known since early on the forum was being analyzed. And it probably doesn't take a rocket scientist to make an educated guess as to what some of the data is used for. I can come up with a few right off the top of my head. In fact, I was going to make a forum post a few months back entitled: Forum as petri dish, but like most of my post ideas, I blew it off. I've said a few times I'd love to have a look at some of the data. It would be insightful, to say the least.

Unless they also track the lurkers and the posts they read. That would up the numbers a bit. As easy as data-mining is nowadays, even a small number of individuals can produce some viable data. Computer simulations, for example. From what I read earlier this year, one of the programs they run has about 3 million avatars, each avatar representing about 100 Americans. Eventually the ratio will be 1:1. And, of course, there's the data on each of us personally. Data that undoubtedly finds its way into the 'richardkentgates' and the 'gnomunny' profiles. Data that will eventually be used in the 'richardkentgates' and 'gnomunny' avatars.

Either way im glad people view race as a dividing issue that to stop. Poor are poor and it does not discriminate. I know what you mean on having to come through the back door i worked construction this past summer and sometimes we had to "interfere" with the workers or costumers of that business. It was a price to pay but i was happy to pay it since i knew i was doing my job and doing it well and i made sure they saw that.

You know, it's funny but there's a bit of classism in construction as well. I was a union roofer back in the '80's. Hot roofing, not shingles (not that there's anything wrong with that. lol). I know part of it was the smell of the kettle, and the fact that you get filthy dirty, but hot roofers were the lowest rung of the ladder. Iron workers and carpenters had more prestige. Of course, the fact that most hot roofers were drunks and ex-cons might have had something to do with it, heheheh.

haha yeah i noticed that to i think everyone just want to think that they are just bigger and better than everyone else. I wouldn't even want to go into the arguments I had with Construction management or foreman.

I was an estimator and even then we still got shafted as second grade workers

Construction in general isn't held in high regard, is it? Estimator is one job we grunts aspired to. Well, those of us that didn't want to be foremen, which requires a bit of ass-kissing and snitching, two traits I thankfully lack.

we disagree. I have watched repub leaders alienate a whole people with their vile hateful talk & actions.

The few hispanics that have become republicans doesn't change these facts.

Sorry. The vote showed 75% understand that the republican party hates latinos. The quote is true. The repub party MUST be called out for their hatred of Latinos, other minorities, womens rights, the earned benefits of our elderly.

The republican party is the party of hate! Sorry. It's not my fault. don't shoot the messenger. They did it themselves.

The quote by Huerta was telling the truth and calling out/denouncing hate. It is not "spreading hate" to call out hate. Republicans (party leadership) hate latinos and all minorities. Sorry.

The Asian republican girl should accept the truth that huearta stated as an education. 75% of Asian Americans voted dem so she will learn. This is why we put our children in school, and why we have great groups like Huerta speak to our students.

We can't be afraid to speak truth to our children. Republican hate latinos!

Sounds true to me and 75%of latinos agreed!

So no I do not denounce the truth, and I never denounce speech that denounces hatred.

You're last item is unclear. But I would say that the effort by Arizona to stop the Mexican centric class is an extension of the hatred of immigrants that the republican party in Arizona has expressed in many ways.

So that anti immigrant, anti latino hatred by the republicans should be denounced and I do.

I think it was not related to race at all. Are you joking? "racially divided nation" How is her tweet related to race? I do not see how it is related to tolerance either. It certainly wasn't intolerant. Are you suggesting it reflected intolerance? Intolerant of what? Who?

I think you are clearly reaching. Or you do not understand racism, & intolerance.

So I think her comment (to her fans) was meant to illicit humor. It a comical play on words. I laughed didn't you. Maybe you didn't get it. Ask a teenager.

It certainly seems like people are much more divided by class than by race, creed, gender, or other factor.

Financial strata divide people by placing us in separate schools, neighborhoods, stores, restaurants, vacations, and jobs. It is ironic that Universities use classifications like race in an effort to build diversity only to create agglomerations of rich kids from gated communities with variety limited to showing up in either an Audi or BMW.

And there are more divisions than just rich and poor. There are many levels of separation between the very poor and very rich.

Class is the biggest divide, I think. Those in control of things have done everything possible to divide us. Look what's happened to 'community' during the 20th century. Suburbs and urban sprawl have separated people by distance, broke up the tight-knit neighborhoods that existed before. The destruction of Main Street, those small businesses that used to be neighborhood gathering places. "Woman's Lib," for all the good it may have done, was instrumental in the breakup of the family unit. Cheap toys and 24-7 mindless entertainment keep us distracted, focused on ourselves more than those around us. The list goes on. Many of us are firmly convinced that TPTB have done everything in their power to make us self-absorbed islands. To force us all into our individual bubbles. But I think it's beginning to come apart, which gives us hope.

As to your last question, that a toughy. I'd have to say class divisions are inevitable. I'm not sure class segregation is.

Suburbs filled a natural human urge for privacy. Were we really meant to live piled on top of one another in cites? Lincoln once said that his father so loved privacy he considered it violated if he could see the smoke from his neighbor's chimney.

There are new channels of communication (like this forum) and a recent variety in information sources (not just nbc, cbs, and abc) that serve to erode barriers.

Not sure that TPTB conspire to make us selfish. It seems too complex to be orchestrated, plus humans are fairly capable of conceit all on their own. The cheap toys and 24-7 mindless entertainment are just produced to make a buck.

Gov has done much more to break up families and generate focus on self-interest than any other institution or movement. What ever happened to "Ask not what your country can do for you..........". Look at the last election. The nation was split over policy differences on how to help the poor, care for the sick, and job creation. Are these policy differences really such huge problems to have? People would kill to have such trivial conflicts in countries like Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and the Sudan (and do with sad regularity).

A few good thoughts. And as usual, many layers of each issue. Suburbs filled a natural human desire for privacy. They were also a boon to the construction industries, auto manufacturers, and oil conglomerates. But having been thru the suburbs countless times, I wonder if that 'privacy' thing wasn't part of the spin used to sell all those slick, new ranch homes.

It's not all TPTB orchestrated, but they sure do know how to exploit our weaknesses, desires, and predispositions for their own ends.

"Gov has done much more to break up families and generate focus on self-interest than any other institution or movement." Dead on. 1000% correct.

One other point. Suburbs were originally an inexpensive alternative to the high cost of city life. Cars (and some mass transit) made suburbs possible. Today, the trend is reversing to some degree as blighted cities gentrify with the help of tax abatement deals, low commuting costs (maybe even no car), and a supposed greener life style.

Ironic isn't it, the trend reversal? I know this is off-topic, but one thing I found fascinating, if true, about the interstate highway system implemented by Eisenhower. Supposedly, for every five miles of interstate laid, one mile must be straight as an arrow. Actually, straight as a runway would be more accurate. It was the Cold War, Eisenhower was a military man. I find it very interesting that, besides linking up the cities and towns of America, provisions were also made giving the military the resource needed to land bombers, or fighters, pretty much anywhere needed. Sometimes, it seems, all roads lead to the MIC, heheheh.

It was the Cold War, and Eisenhower was not only a military man but the commanding general of US and allied forces in WWII. I think that we have recently lost the ability to judge a person's actions by their time and circumstances.

There is also some value in having a commander in chief with first hand experience of the horrors of war. Eisenhower so wanted to avoid future wars that he at one point proposed providing secret nuclear technology to the Soviets in order to maintain parity and reduce the risk of conflict.

I think gnomunny made a perfect argument, one that should be pondered on long and hard. The United States of America has always had an under class that has known no color, ethnicity or sexuality. And for us to always bring up these divisions does no good at uniting us as a coalition.

We keep dividing ourselves into little blocks of people who each block feels they have had it worst. I have always believed that when we do this, we are diluting our numbers and getting no where. For what it's worth, I believe the OP brings up a good point. But that is just an opinion from a supposedly privileged, white man.

You can't have our kind of economic system without an under class, and for us to always point out our differences and fight along those differences seems counterproductive and helps those of privilege keep their politically gained privilege. The privileged class don't fight along these lines so why should we?

We should NOT fight. We should agree that the underclass is bad! That we must work together to improve the lives of ALL people in need.

In regards to race we should all acknowledge the reality that for 400 years there has been viscous racist oppression against the African Americans.

This post says NOTHING. Please restate it. Sounds to me like the post seeks to minimize the great crime against the African American by introducing the Irish, Korean, hispanic, and deliveryman segment of society.

None of which suffered anywhere near as much. None of which continue to suffer.

If your saying we must be silent about the continued racist oppression in America then we disagree.

If you are saying we should acknowledge what has come, what continues, and believe we should help all in need then I am with you.

So, you find this post confusing and unclear. Why am I not surprised? It's also no surprise that you completely missed the point of the post. Yeah, V, the whole point is "the delivery man is just as oppressed as the black man." Yeah, that pretty much sums it up, Forrest.

Well you are clearly minimizing what was acknowledged by the founding fathers as a snake coiled up under the seatsof the continental congress (slavery), You are giving short shrift to what Pres Lincoln called the original sin of this nation.

No other group has suffered 400 years of viscous racist oppression that continues today albeit differently.

You either agree with that or you don't. The Irish, Korean, Hispanic have their own stories, problems that should be understood but not compared. There is NO comparison.

Like I said in the OP, until you have to make the decision as to which of your kids lives or dies based on the food in your pantry, you have no clue about what real suffering is. You were born in the most abundant country in history and you're still belly-aching about slavery. The fact that you think slavery was about "racial oppression" shows you are completely clueless. It was about money, profits. The fact that, until recently, there was no such thing as 'human rights.' Unless you were born into the privileged class, or got very lucky, you were 'property.' Black or white, you were disposable. You, of all people, could learn from this post. But just keep playing the race card, V. Most the intelligent people on this forum know you're nothing but a tool, anyway.

True, but I should point out that, to my knowledge, slave owners didn't starve their slaves to death. And the thing about the Irish starving to death is that it was entirely preventable. The British could have stopped it, or at least drastically reduced it, but didn't. They used starvation as a weapon against the Irish.

Gno, slavery was preventable too. And, plenty of slaves starved to death too and faced inhumane brutality. Millions died just on the trek alone through Africa, millions more on the slave ships. Families were torn apart, people were chained and forced to work for nothing, no freedoms, none, nada. No respect. No education. No compensation. Not free to even take a walk or be with their own children and spouses. Chattel. Treated like chattel. There is no comparison. Absolutely none, sorry, I disagree with you. Did the Irish suffer? Yes, but not the same thing. No way.

I've tried to explain I wasn't comparing the Irish plight to black slavery. In fact, this post wasn't even about the Irish. The couple Irish-related comments were actually a continuation from another thread and meant mainly for V, who called me a racist piece of shit for mentioning the Irish plight.

I'm not minimizing slavery, bw, and never said "no slave ever starved." But I'd be willing to bet, once on the plantation, they got fed. Not minimizing the journey there, just saying. It would be rather stupid to starve the very people you depend on to pick your crops. If you read this whole thread, you'd see that I say more than once I'm not comparing, equating, or minimizing. The whole point is that it's a world-wide problem that has existed since the dawn of time, probably. It's not black American's only. Like I said in the post, very few of us are totally immune to it, or totally blameless. But what prompted this was the number of racially-inflammatory threads that popped up right before the election. What set me off is the fact that the GOP pretty much bragged earlier this year that they would play the race card for political gain, then after being off the forum for over a month, I come back on to find the card being played here. Right before the election. That was a bit of a letdown. And you know it happened, because a couple forum members, fiftyfourfifty and someone else, were banned for posting them. You're a good person, bw, everybody on here knows that. But on this thread anyway, you shouldn't be defending V. He's not attacking the validity of my post, he's attacking the poster. Don't empower him.

I dunno. I read what you wrote here only, and some of Saesneg's ridiculous anti-historical comments and sorry, but I'm not letting some of this stuff stand without saying what I want. If I appear to be defending VQkag so be it. In my mind, I am defending history and history only. I've been here a long time and I know he has enemies but he's not always wrong. When I post, I always stick to the issues. I rarely concern myself with who said what.

I can accept that. But really, bw, I never meant to compare or equate the two. You and V are the only ones that seem to have got that impression, and I don't know where you got it from. St. Louis has often been called the most racially-divided city in America, and having lived here nearly all my life, I can tell you that's MSM bullshit (For the record, my neighborhood is 80% black, 15% white so I'm not entirely clueless about race. My nephew's son is married to a black girl). It's my belief the issue is overblown. It's also my belief it's being used as a weapon to keep the populace divided. It's that last statement that was the thrust of my post. It was meant to be, anyway.

Well, you did say that it was worse for the Irish to not be able to feed all of their children, if any, and of course, the story of the Irish is a horrible one. My beef is not with you, but with this Saesneg who is spewing all sorts of untruths about history. I believe Saesneg is one of these libertarian types that wants to undo what really happened in history in order to justify the way they think things should be. But, history is actually facts and the interpretation of those facts in the most logical and correct way possible. This person is making a sham of history and I'm not cool with that.

No, sorry, I never said anywhere in this post that it was "worse for the Irish." Nowhere. And my comment in the OP, or the comment section, about starvation applies to all starving people. From the post:

"So, I would suggest trying starvation as a lifestyle to give a better perspective on a plight still being experienced by millions of people planet-wide." Emphasis added.

Okay, then, I misunderstood you and apologize for that. But, I see a lot on this thread about white people having it tougher than black people, and I just disagree with that entirely and will correct the history if need be because whites were never enslaved here as Saeseng suggests. 42% of African American children live in poverty and it has deep roots in history.

I'm not going to give you a hard time, b, but I just read thru this whole thread (wasn't on the forum yesterday) and I don't see that I don't really see anyone claiming whites had it worse, just that there were times in the past that other peoples, whites included, had it pretty rough as well. I think the point we're trying to make is that it's a much bigger picture than just the black American segment. I for one, am not minimizing the 400 years, that's not my intent. I understand it's a touchy subject. That's why I flip-flopped on even posting it.

The ridiculous measure of having to choose which child starves would mean very few people could discuss your post.Then you should also not discuss the issue.

And why is ok for you to discuss race but not me.?

We are both talking about race. The difference is you are trying to silence me with ridiculous qualifiers (that don't apply to you coincidentally). Otherwise you are simply hurling insults, "no clue"

I know enough about the racist oppression of African Americans to recognize when a racism apologist is minimizing the horrible crime our country is guilty of ("belly-aching"?).

You don't fool me. You refuse to acknowledge the racist oppression and instead choose to constantly minimize it by false comparisons with other groups have not suffered half as much.

Pathetic. You need to come into the 21st century. We need to put this issue behind us. Not by minimizing it, or pretending it didn't happen. but but recognizing it and committing to helping ALL people in need.

If you really wanted to discuss race, you wouldn't have been so insulting in your first comment to me on this post, the only person on this thread that's done so. The reason you did isn't because my post isn't valid, it's because you and I don't get along. Attack the messenger. I minimize nothing. The fact that you can't deal with racism or oppression of anyone not black doesn't make me a 'racist apologist.' It makes you close-minded, something which is also well known to anyone that reads your comments. You're still bitching about slavery and you tell me to come into the 21th century and put this behind us. Hypocrite. Another of your endearing qualities. And although I've never had to choose which kid ate, I'm watching a family member slowly starve herself to death as we speak. My sister, who has a host of mental issues.

I have NO desire to discuss race. My comments here are only because your post minimizes the 400 years of racist oppression by using false comparisons.

I am attacking that minimizing of this important crime. not you. You have attacked me personally. "hypocrite" "closed minded" and others. who cares. Your personal attacks on me is proof ofthe impotence of your position.

LMFAO

You can't stick to the facts cause your facts don't stand up to the truth.

You brought up race and then complain when I comment on it. I guess you can't handle a difference of opinion.

Acknowledge the real crime, and move on to the task of helping all in need.

I'm comparing nothing. I told you that in fiftyfourfifty's thread. And like I said in this one, it's one man's opinion of the race issue. One guy's observations. No more or less valid than anyone else. It is you that have attacked me on this thread, not the other way around. And point out one thing in my post that isn't true.

You do realize the only reason I'm wasting my time with your nonsense is to shamelessly bump my own thread, don't you? Keep 'em coming, buddy.

No, I used the delivery men using the back door as an example of CLASS oppression. It says so right there. "Shades of Sammy Davis" was my way of saying, based on my experiences, that I can kind of relate to what it feels like to not be allowed to use the front door. Got it?

I have an idea. Before commenting on someone's post, try skimming it more than once. You might (emphasis on might) not miss so much.

THAT is a false comparison. You have NOT experienced anything like what Sammy Davis experienced and to suggest that you have because you had to use the back door as a door man is utterly and patently ridiculous and offensive.

It's completely obvious to anyone reading our exchange that you are skewing the meaning of my words. I'm going to say this one more time, which makes it about a half-dozen times so far on the two threads: I'm not comparing! I'm not equating! Is it any wonder why most people on this forum think you're a dumb ass?

A little blip of history: Africans were actually a relatively large and risky investment; prices increased dramatically after importation was outlawed in 1807. In Rhode Island, which had abolished slavery in 1784, it was the Rothschild family that dominated - they owned everything from the shipyards that built their ships, to the insurance companies that insured the cargo, to the clearance houses from which the slaves were sold. In fact, the Rothschild family profited tremendously both in the Americas and in Europe from African slavery.

It wasn't the Spanish - it was the Portuguese who discovered African slavery in 1453, having sailed down the coast with a cargo of the usual trade goods, only to discover that the African monarchs preferred to exchange their gold for the humans needed to work the mines. Thereafter, the Portuguese would exchange their goods on the northern coast of Africa for slaves which they then traded on the southern coast for gold and ivory. And so began, the European slave trade (the Muslims of North Africa and the Mediterranean had been involved for several hundred years.) Pope Nicholas V granted exclusive license to the Portuguese in 1454; the Spanish created the "asiento" as a license to purchase from the Portuguese for resale into Spanish South America in 1518; the license changed hands often between various European powers but, as you know, the English defeated the Spanish Armada in 1588 and eventually came do dominate the seas. The British took possession of the asiento in 1713 with the conclusion of war with Spain.

It's a huge story; a huge issue, these two paragraphs represent several thousand pages of history, here, condensed. And only one aspect of history; there is a history of caucasion slavery as well. And then there is Lincoln, his defense of the Union (against world money mongers), and his redefinition of constitutional liberty.

"Africans were actually a relatively large and risky investment..." blah blah blah... prices increased...blah blah blah. On human beings? Do you not get that the Africans were human beings, owned by others? They were not commodities.

The African monarchs definitely did not consider it a horrible crime; human beings were the preferred form of property; they viewed slavery as a humanitarian effort.

Queen Isabella opposed the enslavement of the indigenous people of the Caribbean; she no doubt viewed the enslavement of the indigenous as criminal - and therefore proceeded to enslave the African who was infinitely more capable.

The "horrible" became more evident under the British. To the British, poor people in general were of no value. And brutality was integral to life.

Concepts of slavery as immoral were introduced here by Puritan ministers as early as 1640 but it was not until 1774 that in MA Bay, the Superior Court of Commons held that there was "no law of the Province to hold a man to serve for life." Several states abolished slavery early on; even Virginia had entered legislation to abolish slavery as early as 1743, only to be denied by the British that then commanded their courts.

Was slavery a horrible crime? In and of itself, in terms of a necessary economic logic that served some maximum population of a more primitive world, I would have to say no. But brutality definitely is, and always has been, at least for the victim. And the British were a brutal people.

In my opinion, there was no element of slavery more brutal or more horrible though than the enslavement of the English poor, as destined for the Islands. Or the rice paddies of early Virginia. But those millions who were sold to the Muslims, to be castrated, fared no better.

What I am saying is that this is not merely an African issue; it is a human issue. And it always has been.

Same here it was taught in our history classes that slavery is as old as civilization and not one culture invented it. But today people point to the slavery in the United States as the scape goat when we still have slavery problems in Africa and in Asia.

No offense but you can't fit an American history into a curriculum; it's just too big, too lengthy. And so, they condense to acculturate. Because acculturation is, and always was, the primary purpose of public education.

Fascinating. And, not surprisingly, there's that Rothschild name again! And you confirm what I tried to tell V, that slavery was about money and profits, not about racial suppression, a concept that didn't exist back then.

Slavery prior to the plantation complex was a completely different type of slavery. The slave was often of the same race and the work was not as strenuous as slaves working on the plantation. In the Muslim world slaves worked normally in the home and there was a paternalistic relationship and the slave was almost always considered part of the family. When Africans entered the slave trade with Europeans they generally had no idea what plantations were like and what plantation slavery would be like. They viewed slavery under the guise of how it was in Africa which was more paternalistic, very similar to slavery as it existed in the Muslim world and all over the world prior to the development of the plantation, really.

Now, once we get to triangular trade and the plantation complex in the United States which needs hard labor, it is a. illegal to enslave whites b. the native Americans have been killed off so c. they turn to Africa for a pool of labor. Africans were outstanding farmers. However, it was extremely racial in terms of how different the "other," the African, appeared. They could easily justify enslaving Africans because they were not fully human in their eyes. They didn't look like Europeans, they didn't live like Europeans, etc. etc. so it was easy to justify their enslavement. And, the kind of slavery they were sending them off to was unlike any slavery ever seen in the world before. The brutal work of slavery on the plantation complex. So, no, it was not color blind. I completely disagree.

I don't disagree with much of what you said... under Isabella, slavery possessed elements of a less brutal form. But plantation slavery itself was far more brutal in the Caribbean or South America than it ever was here.

And this racial divide you mention actually begins with Queen Isabella.

You neglect to mention though that virtually all of the male slaves that inhabited Muslims homes were first castrated, or that fully one half of those castrated either bled to death or died of infection - virginity and marital fidelity, it seems, are highly valued in the Muslim world.

The triangular trade is somewhat of a misconception; a neat means of explanation.

And the question for me, initially, was how a supposedly religious people as Puritan justified slavery. Well, it was defined or justified under three criteria after much debate, but even so, abolitionism eventually found a voice in the churches amongst our women; it was our women who raised this voice.

Well, let me put this another way... no one, no one, noticed the white people in chains, did they? They saw only those of color. My only point is that it was not a racial issue; it was an economic issue from which no one in the colonial world was immune; they were equal opportunity slavers. Not even the rich were immune because with one little change in circumstance, they could find themselves enslaved, too.

I believe it was color blind. I imagine it was far easier logistically, or at least more palatable, to steal people from a third-world location (which just so happened to be dark-skinned) than to snatch them off the streets of Europe (largely white).

I most firmly beg to differ - the white poor European suffered for far longer than that. And he, too, found himself enslaved both in Muslim countries, by Muslim clergy in Africa as recently as 1910, and in this one.

The correct number has been variously estimated by historians as between 10. 5 and 11 million. And for much of the 400 years of American history that you reference, the English white poor were also enslaved alongside the African; they were not favored for their whiteness; they were disfavored because they were of lesser value.

"Indentured" is but a contract; indentures took on many forms. But only one in ten of these indentured "servants" survived in colonial America to leave either descendants or to own property. That is a rather brutal indenture. The defining difference is that the English poor were worth even less to them than the African.